Why don't doctors insist on vegetarian diets? Probably because the science doesn't actually say what he claims.
http://thatnerdysciencegirl.com/2015/11/13/the-case-against-dr-michael-gregernutritionfacts/

Referencing one opinion blog to accuse someone's lack of scientific evidence.

Oh the irony...

EDIT: BTW the blogger is just some bozo that is trying to justify her reasons not to be fully vegetarian/vegan, by using character assassination.

She's doing whatever it takes to clear herself from any responsibility or guilt.

He does address that question in this very video. It's for all the same reasons why doctors advocated smoking in the past.

So, you admit he advocates veganism because it's how he makes his money? That's a big step forward.

He doesn't address his cherrypicking data and studies, or ignoring anything that doesn't fit his narrative. He doesn't address the fact that his income comes from his books on the subject and speaking fees to talk about it.

When one fudges and misrepresents the science, I ignore them, and he consistently does.

I think your overestimating how much money is in charity appearances for an vegan audience(which is something like 1% of the population). Wouldn't be easier to make money from a product that targets the other 99% of the population?

If he wanted to make money, he can make a lot more by simply being a doctor. And a helluva lot more by prescribing statins and all of the other drugs used to counteract the side-effects of statins.

Or if he wanted the blogs and lifestyle thing, he could sell Paleo/Ketosis diets because it's a lot easier to sell books that tell people to eat bacon instead of vegetables.

You'll notice that his blog doesn't make money like other blogs do, as there are no ads, and he's got no industry sponsorship's.

If he's trying to make money, then he's doing a poor job.





As for cherry picking data, yes his opinions are formed by the studies that aren't clearly B.S. industry funded designer studies - The studies that are repeated over and over with small adjustments to make the outcome positive. But I know he reads even the industry funded studies, because he often points out why they are poorly constructed studies, designed purposely to show a specific outcome.


He makes a new video nearly every day, and has been doing so for nearly 10 years. That's some 3000+ videos. He's allowed one mistake.
But it's not even a mistake. This blogger is trying to discredit all of this work because of semantics about a W.H.O. report. (She didn't read the W.H.O report correctly, because it does actually say that poultry *may* be carcinogenic too).

His blogs ask you to support a charity, that he owns, and buy his books, and see his appearances, etc. Likely he wasn't a great doctor, or yes, he probably could make more money that way (although maybe not, even though zealous people like you may be <2% of the US population, if 10% of you pay/make him $1 a year, he's making a MINT, WAY more than a normal practitioner, and with speaking fees, I'm sure he makes at least that...also, a doctor that tells his patients they must adopt a vegan lifestyle won't keep many patients.)

By "not clearly BS industry funded designer studies" you must mean any study that doesn't fit his narrative, because it's FAR from only industry studies that he ignores, and the few studies he actually supports, he exaggerates and misrepresents.

Yes, it did say they "may" be carcinogenic, and he quotes that as "it says that chicken and turkey are deadly carcinogenic cancer causing agents". That's absolute bullshit, making up statements and attributing them to reputable sources to garner support for your pet cause. He's a liar and exaggerator, so he's blown his chance to teach anyone anything.

He never says anything as dramatic as "chicken and turkey are deadly carcinogenic cancer causing agent".

There is only one person exaggerating here and it's you.


Watch the video linked in the blog, it's only 2:55 seconds long.
And he shows you the text from the WHO report. And they do mention poultry.

His balanced view couldn't be any clearer.

"plant based diets (quitting meat) is the equivalent of quitting smoking".....Pretty clear to me....so does this article he produced..."The World Health Organization recently published a report that puts chicken nuggets, deli turkey slices, bacon and other processed meats in the same category as cigarettes and asbestos: known carcinogens"
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/how-much-cancer-does-lunch-meat-cause/

Except the report really only said that PROCESSED meats/poultry MAY be dangerous carcinogens (edit: and that may be 100% due to the processing they receive, not the meat)...so sorry, no exaggeration on my part, it's on his part.

But the WHO report does in fact put chicken nuggets, turkey slices, and bacon into the same category(Group 1 carcinogens) as cigarettes and asbestos, because they are processed meats.

He's just saying what the report says, so I don't understand how that can be exaggeration.


"plant based diets (quitting meat) is the equivalent of quitting smoking".
In terms of disease and mortality that is completely accurate.

OK, so cured meats cured with nitrates are now classified carcinogenic, but non cured meats, and meats cured without nitrates, salt, or smoke only "may" be slightly carcinogenic...or may not. So still, not all deli turkey, not all chicken nuggets (I make them at home from whole chicken with no preservatives) or bacon (I had some uncured bacon a few years back...it sucked, but it does exist)....so not ALL processed meats are in that category, and certainly not all nuggets, sliced turkey, or bacon...so exaggeration, even if you wish to say it's only exaggeration by omission of detail.

Because he strongly implies it's because they are meats, says "The World Health Organization recently published a report that puts chicken nuggets, deli turkey slices, bacon and other processed meats in the same category as cigarettes and asbestos: known carcinogens" without explanation, and extrapolates to imply that all meats are as carcinogenic as habitually smoking processed tobacco cigarettes.

In terms of disease, overall danger to a person's health, and morality, it's completely inaccurate, and grossly misleading. A processed plant diet (the norm) can be FAR worse for you and the environment than a sustainably raised, non processed meat based diet (which is not the norm). It's not cut and dry, details matter.
"The International Agency for Cancer Research (IARC) used clearly defined guidelines to identify hazards (qualitative evaluation), i.e. whether an agent can cause cancer, but IARC does not assess level or the magnitude of risk.
Even though smoking is in the same category as processed meat (Group 1 carcinogen), the magnitude or level of risk associated with smoking is considerably higher (e.g., for lung cancer about 20 fold or 2000% increased risk) from those associated with processed meat – an analysis of data from 10 studies, cited in the IARC report showed an 18 percent increased risk in colorectal cancer per 50g processed meat increase per day. To put this in perspective, according to the Global Disease Burden Project 2012, over 34,000 cancer deaths per year worldwide are attributable to high processed meat intake vs. 1 million deaths per year attributable to tobacco smoke."
source- https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2015/11/03/report-says-eating-processed-meat-is-carcinogenic-understanding-the-findings/
So, smoking =2000% greater risk, eating meat daily-18% greater risk....so not honestly equivalent by any stretch.

I would agree that switching from a processed meat based diet to a non processed plant based (not even necessarily pure vegetarian) diet, in general, might be equivalent to quitting smoking (but smoking how much, and smoking what, depends on MANY variable factors, and it appears it's generally equivalent to smoking <2 cigarettes per week, while breathing air in most cities is equivalent to smoking a pack a day).

As the "Bozo" who runs the very site that you just attacked, I would like a chance to respond to your baseless accusations, sir.

I was plant-based lacto-vegetarian at the time of writing that post, and was vegan just 13 days after writing it, on November 27th. I am now going back and forth between vegan and vegetarian due to severe digestive health issues, but thanks for trying to say I am using that post to "justify" anything I do.

I wrote the blog post, and if you read it, I simply mention why Greger is unreliable as the "bulletproof" source that many vegans make him out to be, including his bias and his inaccuracies. I never once attacked him as a person, which you would know if you actually read the post, I simply mention that inaccurate claims that he doesn't benefit from his work, because facts state that the charity he gives to is his own charity, which does nothing other than fund his videos, books, and lectures.

These are facts. This isn't even an opinion. I am not trying to attack Greger, and I think that if he dropped his biases at the front door, and didn't use flawed or non-existent studies to promote this that or the other, I would like him more.

But to be honest, no, he isn't this infallible being people claim him to be.

and no, the WHO report, if you read it, does not mention Chicken Nuggets or Turkey Slices. The FAQ section I linked to only mentions poultry once, as the definiton of a processed food. But it also said:

"21. Should we eat only poultry and fish?

The cancer risks associated with consumption of poultry and fish were not evaluated."

Read the actual post before commenting on whether or not a blog is "opinion"

Sincerely,

The Bozo

Oh snap! Thanks for chiming in.

Moving this video to transmorpher's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.

A report that places chicken nuggets, turkey slices and bacon in the same category as cigarettes and asbestos is NOT equivalent to saying that quitting meat is the disease and mortality equivalent of quitting smoking.

That is patently absurd, and demonstrates what happens when someone tries to apply the scientific conclusion of a study to ...everything else. Scientific studies have a particular scope. They should state clearly within the study the limits of what the information can tell us.

1. How much of those meat products must you eat vs. how many cigarettes do you have to smoke? If i quit having one slice of bacon a week, I will not be healthier than if i quit smoking 10 a day.
2. The meat products you refer to make up only a small fraction of the meat based produce that is available. You might as well say "krokodil is bad for you, so stop taking your insulin."

I expect you to admit that the bit from the comment quote (put in bold) is wrong.

Epic reply!

Look out for that Oscar-worthy performance of Jeff Goldblum as sickly nutrion-enthusiast! Just like Leto in Dallas Buyer's Club, you could smell the AIDS by simply looking at him. Award season's close, man! Fingers crossed!

I think @transmorpher is either being a little deceitful or has completely confused himself, so I'd just like to make a few points clear:

Dr. Neal Barnard is the person who said "plant based diets (quitting meat) is the equivalent of quitting smoking."

I can find no evidence of the WHO referring to Dr. Barnard's study or any other work. They certainly would not condone that statement because it is bullshit science as previously stated.

Dr. Barnard appears on the website Quackwatch which aims to "combat health-related frauds, myths, fads, fallacies, and misconduct." Quackwatch is well respected, except amongst quacks.

To summarise, this means that he is quoting a study written by a known quack, and using the WHO statement on carcinogenic effect to support it. There is no scientific basis for using the WHO statement as confirmation of Dr. Barnard's quote about quitting smoking (see previous comment). It is Dr. Barnard who refers to the WHO, not vice versa.

It also means that there is only one person and study saying that it is more healthy to quit meat than smoking, as far as i can tell. Perhaps other studies say the same thing with different wording and I can't find it - but the onus is not on me to find the evidence, it is upon you to supply it.

All Dr. Greger is essentially saying is eat more vegetables & fruits - he's not selling some weird pill or bogus device.
You don't have to give him a cent, and can watch his videos for free. Yet everyone is acting like he's taking people's money and laughing all the way to the bank.

Funny how as soon as someone says to take responsibility for your own actions - people will do anything it takes to make sure they don't have to.

How come nobody has tried the character assassination technique on Dr. Kim Williams yet? (The top cardiologist in the US, mentioned at the end of the video, who is vegan specifically for health reasons) .

It's much easier to attack the first person the on screen that is telling you to take control of your life, because then you can feel good about not taking any action.

And if you read that paper, Dr. Barnard's conclusions are drawn from multiple studies, which he had no hand in.


I'm not sure why you're connecting the two together - The WHO report has nothing to do with Dr. Neal Barnard. The WHO report is based on nearly 700 independent studies completed over the last few decades.

Your blog post doesn't "simply mention" anything. Your blog post is clearly an attack on Dr. Greger's credibility.

For starters the blog post title is "The case against Dr. Greger" AND!!!!! you put "Dr." into quotations to suggest he's not a doctor, or not worthy of being one.

You try to catch him out on a technicality, which you misword in your post to make it sound worse than it is.

Your artifical sweetner claims are also weak. ( The number of industry funded positive studies don't outweight the recent studies showing how bad artificial sweetners actually are, from obesity, to aspartame turning into formaldehyde in the blood).

These aren't the actions of someone that is "simply mentioning" something. You had a clear agenda when you wrote that blog post. Which was either to create controversy in order to get traffic to your website, or to justify your non-vegan diet at the time of writing.


Also if you're having digestive issues, it's most likely dairy. Not just milk and cheese, but the milk powder they put into processed foods.

Edit:
Chicken nuggets are poultry yes, but they are highly processed - which puts them into the processed meat category. The WHO report doesn't specifically mention every single type of processed meat and brand because they're assuming that people can tell what processed meat is. But apparently they've given people too much credit.

I put that in quotations because he LITERALLY isn't a PhD dietitian, so he has NO credibility to dish out diet advice or write books on the topic anymore than the Lawyer who wrote The Obesity Myth. That is a fact. Deal with it. If you are going to put that in your title to gain credibility, be prepared to have it questioned.

I also simply mentioned Sucralose, which the only study against it was a single case study he used. Also, almost none of the studies proving that Sucralose is ok were industry funded, many of the ones showing it was bad was funded by the Naturalistic Industry. Funny how that works.

I rarely eat processed foods, and eat nothing that has whey or milk powder in it. That also doesn't explain why potatoes and Carrots cause my digestional upset as well, but thanks for trying. I am pretty sure you are even LESS qualified than the General Practitioner Greger in this.

And since the WHO wasn't talking about fish or poultry, they were not talking about Chicken Nuggets and Sliced Turkey. Sorry. Stop bending the facts to try to fit your narrative. Processed nuggets are not healthy for you, but they are NOT mentioned in this study.

Thanks again for playing, but like last time, you lost. Take the L babe

Nobody is attacking Greger for claiming others should eat more fruits and vegetables, in fact, that isn't even controversial. He is being CRITICIZED, which I don't know if you know what that word means, for LYING, MISREPRESENTING FACTS, and PROMOTING A BIAS. Nobody is attacking the Cardiologist because the Cardiologist isn't a shill who is misrepresenting facts in order to sell more books. Yes, his videos are free, but his books and merch are not. Neither are his DVDs

In fact, the fact that the Cardiologist isn't being attacked blows your victim mentality out of the water.

I am sorry if your god being criticized hurts you for some reason, but no, Greger is not some being who is infallible, and he is adult enough to not need you to get pissy FOR him.

God, fanboys are annoying.

So now you do admit that your blog post was a smear attack. You weren't "simply mentioning". We'll it's going to be hard to have an honest discussion then. Because you're happy to lie in order to be "right".

Dr. Greger reads " every single diet related research paper, written in English, every year" He says this as his opener on every presentation he does.

If that doesn't make him a qualified and credible source, then I don't know what does.

PhD's are focused on a single, narrow yet very detailed topic. So mentioning PhD isn't even relevant here.


The fact that you've come to the conclusion that he's not a credible source based on your own technicalities is just absurd.

Sliced turkey and chicken nuggets = processed meat. The report was warning about processed meat.
Poultry and fish = unprocessed meat. They mentioned this because they were talking about red meat (unprocessed) and didn't want people to become confused. But that obviously failed in this case.

OK here I'll admit you're right, please don't take advice from me, without doing your own research as well. But you said you're lacto-vegetarian, and most people don't eat carrots on their own, or just potatoes on their own. Most people make mash-potoates (with milk). Most people dip their carrots into creamy cheeses etc.

The only thing I've lost is a bit of my free time, and I'm happy to give it up because I'm enjoy this conversation.

I already debunked all of your points. I will not be destroying your victim complex again sir.

Have a good day

I don't mind if you criticize Dr. Greger at all. But your criticisms aren't valid. They're based on your own agenda.

Those DVD's are the same as his free videos , and the book is just the written form of the videos. Nobody has to buy any of it at all. That's how charities work.

What merch??? he doesn't sell any. You're the only one misrepresenting the facts here.

He's not there to make himself rich. Because as mentioned earlier in the topic, there are many easier ways to make money as a doctor.

He is not lying and misrepresenting facts, or promoting a bias. You're the only one saying that, and it's based on a technicality and poor research on your own behalf.

Of course he's not infallible. I totally understand that he's human and might even make a mistake:

Which is why I haven't made a blog post trying to discredit him for a poorly worded sentence. LIKE YOU DID.

(redacted)

Absolutely false. He's outright saying that stopping eating meat, and nothing else, is equivalent to stopping smoking, which is an outright lie.
He sells a lifestyle, with books, blogs, websites, videos, and appearances for sale. There's nothing wrong with that, unless you claim to not have a financial tie to your movement or financial incentives to mislead and exaggerate. He clearly does, and lies about that too.

Insisting on honesty does nothing to remove personal responsibility for yourself. Please.

No one mentions Dr Williams because he's not making up studies or results, he's offering a personal opinion and explanation of his personal actions...not lying to convince others to follow suit out of misplaced fear....like your hero, "Dr" Greger.

It's proper to attack the zealous liar that's making a living selling lies....like "Dr" Greger, no matter when they appear on screen.

One more example of him lying....taking "Consumption of foods high in saturated AND industrially produced trans fats, salt, and sugar is the cause of at least 14 million deaths" and restated it as "consumption of animal foods (and processed foods) leads to at least 14 million deaths."...but the study conclusion he references doesn't mention animal foods at all, he just added that, and emphasized it over what the study actually said while completely omitting processed plant based foods, which are just as bad as the meat ones according to the study. That's lying. Lies like that make it difficult to take personal responsibility for your health, because you have to debunk them to get to the good advice/actual facts.

Are you watching these videos via the enigma encryption machine? Because he does not say that.

He says "Plant based diets may now be considered the nutritional equivalent of quitting smoking."

Explain how that differs from what I wrote. When he says that, it's clear and incontrovertible that he means to imply that switching from a non plant based diet to a plant based one offers the same health benefits as quitting smoking...which is a bold lie. Do you disagree?

2000% increase in cancer rates VS 18% increase is in no way equivalent, so still a bold faced lie....and it's not 'plant based vs meat based' in the studies he references, it's really processed food vs non processed foods, a fact he repeatedly misrepresented and intentionally so....so again, bold faced lies.

Everything in Moderation.

Meat is fine health wise in moderation. A candy bar is fine health wise in moderation. A gin and tonic is fine health wise in moderation. Going out in the sun is fine health wise in moderation. What exactly is a moderate amount of these things is more the question i believe when it comes to ones health.

The problem i find is when I indulge in salt, sugar and fat, it becomes a slippery slope as i tend to crave them. When i went full on plant based diet i cut all those things out it was quite enjoyable without them. When i had those things reintroduced into my diet it all went out the window But that was just me. I'm no good at moderation.

I fully agree, but I note that plant based doesn't necessarily mean absence of salt, sugar, or fat, although I admit many people think of it that way. Removing those three things, IMO, makes far more difference than what you put them on (with obvious exceptions). Salty, sugary, fatty plant based foods can be FAR worse than healthy lean meats.
It's not a cut and dry comparison, details matter, sometimes as much as the big picture.

I have zero desire to be nit picky about these things. Im not talking about extremes or absolutes. More general guide lines. I was so much healthier when i was plant based. Life time of headaches gone. Daily stomach problems gone. Mental illness issues seemed better (depression). Although i think maybe just my willingness to make positive change could have been the reason for this. I also lost a ridiculous amount of weight as a side benefit and felt much better about myself.

Like i said im sure you can have all these things with meat and a bag of chips and a candy bar occasionally, but i personally can't. I'm very all or nothing. I suck that way.

I'll address your linked report first because I have a problem with the statistics on there. It's a little misleading because the bit you mentioned only considers cancer deaths attributable with processed meats.

But then goes to includes all diseases attributable with smoking, not just cancer.
So it's not comparing cancer to cancer rates. The report is comparing processed meat cancer with ALL smoking diseases.

And this makes smoking look a lot worse. For a fair comparison we'd need to compare only smoking caused cancers to processed meat cancers.
Or we'd need to compare diseases from processed meat, to all diseases from smoking.

Further the report, states that it's an 18% risk for only 50g of processed meat.
I don't know about anyone else, but when I ate the stuff, it wasn't just 50g. That's like 3 chicken nuggets. I'd eat 9 at least in one sitting for lunch(150g). Maybe I had 2 rashers of bacon for breakfast, another 50g, and then I might have a few slices of salami for dinner, another 50g.

So in a day I might have eaten 250g of processed meat. So it might only be 18% chance to get cancer, but that's 5 times I've rolled the dice(250 divded by 50g = 5). So even low odds get pretty dangerous if you roll the dice often enough.


Right after that paragraph, it goes on to say that the total number of attributable deaths to processed meat is 644,000.

So now we're finally comparing apples with apples. 644,000 processed meat deaths vs. 1 million tobacco deaths.

Still smoking is the clear winner here, but it's 2/3 the way there. So to me Dr. Greger's statement is starting to ring true.

Of course Dr. Greger isn't only talking about processed meat, he's talking about all meat, including poultry and fish too. Because just like processed meat, they have cholesterol and saturated fat which causes heart disease and diabetes without a doubt.
The heart disease statistics are (google says:) "An estimated 17.5 million people died from CVDs in 2012, representing 31% of all global deaths"
Now granted not all of these cardiovascular diseases will be diet related. But we only need to another 366,000 out of that 17.5 million to be caused by diet, and now we're comparing 1 million meat related deaths to 1 million tobacco related deaths.

So it's totally comparable in my eyes. And in the end, regardless of which has higher chances of cancer. The death rates are easily matched.

(not to mention colorectal cancer is kills more people, even though more people get lung cancer. Because lung cancer is more survivable).

This! And in Dr. Greger's book he even says this

Something a long the lines of:
Eating a steak once a week has a negligible amount of risk associated with health, as does smoking once per week. But most people find it a slippery slope, so it's easier to avoid it completely.

OK, assuming what you say is correct (I'm not taking the time now to check) you have a point, but the stats, even if only 1/2 as bad as it seems, still show there's absolutely no equivalence.

Well, if you ate like that, no wonder you think meat is deadly. Eating like that, it is. Eaten in moderation, meaning <50g of CURED meats, and probably less than 1/3 lb of non cured lean red meats, the conclusion I came to is reasonable....that it's in no way comparable to smoking in it's danger. it's not even comparable if you eat 5 times the studied portion of cured meats, although it is clearly not healthy to do so. I eat < 1/2 lb of steak, on the rare occasions I eat it. I eat 1/2 a chicken breast on a normal day, baked. Because I eat good meat, properly prepared, in moderation, there's little to no statistical increase in danger to my health over eating pure vegetarian.

No sir, your stats are wrong....here's direct from the WHO.....
http://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/
12. How many cancer cases every year can be attributed to consumption of processed meat and red meat?

According to the most recent estimates by the Global Burden of Disease Project, an independent academic research organization, about 34 000 cancer deaths per year worldwide are attributable to diets high in processed meat.
Eating red meat has not yet been established as a cause of cancer. However, if the reported associations were proven to be causal, the Global Burden of Disease Project has estimated that diets high in red meat could be responsible for 50 000 cancer deaths per year worldwide.
These numbers contrast with about 1 million cancer deaths per year globally due to tobacco smoking, 600 000 per year due to alcohol consumption, and more than 200 000 per year due to air pollution.

So, it's 34000 cancer deaths for cured meats (and IF the correlative results with red meat are in fact causative, another 50000 worldwide for red meat) VS 1000000 cancer tobacco deaths. So no, it's not 2/3 there, it's at best, IF red meat is the cause of cancers at the highest level possible (not at all proven) it's 1/12 of the way there....around 8.4%. Agreed, that's not good, but no where near what you (and he) claims.

Cholesterol and saturated fat only MAY cause heart disease and diabetes, not 'do without a doubt', and then usually only in high levels (in normal people). They raise the risk factor for those diseases, but do not automatically cause heart disease and/or diabetes, even in people with incredibly high levels.

Research indicates that you missed the mark with the 644000 number, it's more like 34000 (and maybe another 50000, unproven) according to the WHO, I'll take the stats of the organization whose study is being discussed.

So if you look at the real numbers, it's still not comparable at all. Cancer, and death rates are orders of magnitude different, far more than 10 times higher for smoking with every possible benefit of a doubt given to meats toxicity/effects, so not at all easily matched. Sorry.

(and you also appear to be 100% wrong about cancer survivability)
http://www.Cancer.org -Colon cancer-For stage IIB cancer, the survival rate is about 63%. The 5-year relative survival rate for stage IIIA colon cancers is about 89%. For stage IIIB cancers the survival rate is about 69%, and for stage IIIC cancers the survival rate is about 53%.
http://www.lung.org - Lung cancer-The five-year survival rate for lung cancer is 54 percent for cases detected when the disease is still localized (within the lungs). However, only 15 percent of lung cancer cases are diagnosed at an early stage. For distant tumors (spread to other organs) the five-year survival rate is only 4 percent.

So, to summarize, colon cancer 53%-89% survivability (depending largely on when it's caught) VS lung cancer 4% (for 85% of cases, and 54% for the 15% of lucky few with early detections)

I wouldn't consider once a week as moderation. I'd consider that rarely.

I also don't admit that there's no risk. There's a negligible risk, which is different.

The 644,000 figure came from the study you linked.

"Smoking vs. high consumption of processed meat
Even though smoking is in the same category as processed meat (Group 1 carcinogen), the magnitude or level of risk associated with smoking is considerably higher (e.g., for lung cancer about 20 fold or 2000% increased risk) from those associated with processed meat."

I could be reading this wrong - but are they saying that you're 2000% more likely to get lung cancer from smoking, than getting lung cancer from processed meat?
If that's the case then my response is "Duh, you don't put processed meat into your lungs"

! Nice. Technically, no, but I see how it could be read that way. They need a better editor. They should call my mom, she worked at Stanford for decades as lead editor.
Clearly what it means is , 'the magnitude or level of risk associated with smoking is considerably higher from those associated with daily consumption of processed meat. (for example, for lung cancer from smoking, there's about a 20 fold, or 2000% increased risk, while for colorectal cancer from daily eating processed foods there's about an 18% increased risk).
I'm pretty sure you're intelligent enough to understand that.

And here is the problem in discussions like this. How we define words like rarity, moderation and negligible. The problem i see with this discussion is it seems like its more about winning than understanding. I think we can all agree on whats generaly healthy.

@transmorpher the issue i have is that you have shown yourself to be anti animal product NOT for health reasons necessarily although you are touting that, but for moral reasons. Its hard to buy into your sincerity regarding health when you feel consuming animal products is morally problematic.

And i believe that basing your diet on being plant based (fruits,veg,beans,nuts, very limited processed foods and animal products if any) is by far the best way to go for general health.

This is just my belief based on what ive read and my personal experience that left me in awe of how a healthy diet could make such a difference in my life physically and mentally. You think you know whats up, but then you realize you had no idea after you actually do it. This is my experience with diet.

I thought so, but it just sounded a bit strange.

And, until the next food related video. Good bye

I get it....no blame, or if there's blame I'll take it....(and I think that was a Harvard explanation of the WHO report, not a new study) I'm just saying that number is incorrect, and the numbers I quote came from the WHO themselves. Since it's their study we're discussing, it makes sense to take their stats, no?

Dr. Greger confesses https://youtu.be/nK_I7z7ZELk